Judgment :- Challenge in this writ petition is the order of dismissal of the Petitioner from service of 2nd Respondent bank as Secretary. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of writ petition as follows: .(i) M.D.Spl.123 Kanniservaipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, was registered on 010. 1970 and started first work on 010. 1970. It was reported that certain serious irregularities were committed by the Petitioner in the said Bank during official duties discharge as Secretary in the Bank. Moreover, the Petitioner by his capacity is alleged to have abused his power and thereby misappropriated the funds of the bank. By the order dated 14.07.1998, the Petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Thereafter, a detailed Charge Memo dated 14.07.1998 was issued to him and was asked to submit his explanation. .(ii) Petitioner was again placed under suspension on 110. 2000. Fresh domestic enquiry was ordered. After calling for the explanation from the Petitioner fresh domestic enquiry was held against the writ petitioner. (iii) On the basis of the domestic enquiry report and perusal of connected records, exercising greater care and caution, the Petitioner was dismissed 17.02.2001 from the post of Secretary in the said bank by the order dated 17.02.2001 of the previous management. (iv) Petitioner filed Revision Petition under Sec.153 of Tamilnadu Co-operatives Societies Act before 1st Respondent. By the impugned order dated 02.08.2001, 1st Respondent dismissed the appeal which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr. N. Umapathi, contended that the very same Charge Memo for the charges having been dropped, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to reopen the issue. It was further argued that after closing the enquiry Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to direct the President and Board of Directors to take fresh action against the Petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that Revisional Authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case. 4. The 2nd Respondent Society has not entered appearance. 5. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, heard Mr. N. Senthilkumar, Additional Government Pleader. The learned Addl.Govt. Pleader submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are very grave and that without following the procedure of the domestic enquiry, the charges were dropped by the order dated 12.08.1998. 4. The 2nd Respondent Society has not entered appearance. 5. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, heard Mr. N. Senthilkumar, Additional Government Pleader. The learned Addl.Govt. Pleader submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are very grave and that without following the procedure of the domestic enquiry, the charges were dropped by the order dated 12.08.1998. It was further submitted that having regard to gravity of misconduct and charges fresh enquiry was held and rightly the final order of dismissal came to be passed and the same cannot be challenged. 6. Even at the outset it may be noted that as many as 25 charges were levelled against the Petitioner. The misconduct and gist of charges are very grave. The gravamen of the charges are down below: "The Petitioner has created fabricated loan documents in the name of his wife, father and brother and the Petitioner himself signed the papers sanctioning loan of Rs.1,55,945/- and misappropriated the said amount. "Manipulated records and issued loans to persons other than the persons sanctioned by the Board. For instance, instead of one Tamilarasi for whom loan sanction was granted by the Board Petitioner disbursed the loan to one Pandi. "Granting of further loan to loanees, who were already defaulters. For instance, one Amudha was a defaulter and the Petitioner granted loan to her husband Kannan. "Without proper sanction Petitioner granted short term loan amounts of Rs.33,636/-. Further charges levelled against the Petitioner are that he created forged documents for his absence for duties by affixing papers on the absent marked days. He recommended loans to the residents of Darichipatti village which is not the area operation of society. Thereby, cheated the Board of Management and caused loss to the respondent society. Share capital 798, S.Perumal Gounder father of the Petitioner while the member he indebted the bank for Rs.44,750/-without the approval of Board of directors. He responded to M.No.2483, Rajeswari a sum of Rs.2000/-from share capital without approval of the Board of Directors. The petitioner committed misappropriation by forgery of documents, disbursed loans without sanction and approval by the Board of directors and returned share capital to his father and another member without approval of the Board of Directors. 7. The Board of Directors, without following the proceedings of the domestic enquiry passed the resolution on 12.08.1998, dropping the disciplinary action against the Petitioner. 7. The Board of Directors, without following the proceedings of the domestic enquiry passed the resolution on 12.08.1998, dropping the disciplinary action against the Petitioner. Having regard to the gravity of charges after issuing Show Cause Notice, further domestic enquiry was held against the Petitioner. In the domestic enquiry all the charges were found proved and after affording opportunity to the Petitioner final order of dismissal dated 17.02.2001 came to be passed. 8. The main contention of Petitioner is that once the charges were dropped the Petitioner cannot be further proceeded with. The contention does not merit acceptance. The charges related to the period during which Sec.162 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act (for short Act) was holding the field. 9. Prior to Amendment, Section 162 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 reads as under: "162. Punishment for corrupt practice.-(1)where any officer of a registered society, or an employee or a paid servant or any member of such society- .(a) receives or sanctions a benami loan; or .(b) commits any irregularity in receipt or sanction of loan or in purchases or causes deficits in stocks; or he shall be deemed to be guilty of corrupt practice. As per Sec.162 - punishment of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner is in order. 10. When the earlier Management have taken a lenient view and when the charges are grave in nature, it was well within the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act to initiate fresh domestic enquiry. There is no force in the contention that the issuance of fresh Charge Memo is without jurisdiction. 11. Contending that once the charge memo was issued the second Charge Memo on the very same irregularities cannot be issued. The learned counsel placed reliance upon 1999 (2) LLN 286, N. Elangovan vs Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore and another. In the said case the Charge Memo issued was dropped and later second charge memo was issued. Challenging the second charge memo Petitioner filed Revision petition under Sec.153 of the Act which was rejected by Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain Revision. Observing that under Section 153 of the Act, joint Registrar has got wide powers to exercise revisional jurisdiction to call for records either suo motu or on application by the aggrieved person, examine the same and pass appropriate orders. Observing that under Section 153 of the Act, joint Registrar has got wide powers to exercise revisional jurisdiction to call for records either suo motu or on application by the aggrieved person, examine the same and pass appropriate orders. Justice P.D. Dinakaran (as His Lordship then was) has allowed the writ petition and quashed the second Charge Memo. 12. The factual background of the said case stands entirely on different footing. That apart nature of charges in the said case is also not known. In the present case, having regard to the gravity of charges it cannot be said that the issuance of second Charge Memo is vitiated by irregularities. In the order dated 17.02.2001, while passing the order of dismissal the President of the Society has observed that the past records of the Petitioner is not good. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that if the Disciplinary Authority takes into consideration the past history of a delinquent an opportunity ought to have been given to the Petitioner as to what was the previous record taken note by the Disciplinary Authority and the Petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the same. 13. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon 1990(1) LLN pg 477 Madras Fertilisers, Ltd., Madras vs First Additional Labour Court, Madras. It was further argued that denial of such opportunity would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed there on. 14. By perusal of the order dated 17.02.2001, it is seen that the Disciplinary Authority had only made a passing remark that Petitioner has no good past history, that remark appears to be only a casual observation which does not call for issuance of any further opportunity to the Petitioner to offer his explanation. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case and passing observation of the Disciplinary Authority in the year 02.08.2001 does not warrant issuance of such further second Show Cause Notice. 15. It is well established that the rules of natural justice are not rigid rules; they are flexible and their application depends upon the setting and the background of statutory provision, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may entail, its application depends upon facts and circumstance of each case. 16. 15. It is well established that the rules of natural justice are not rigid rules; they are flexible and their application depends upon the setting and the background of statutory provision, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may entail, its application depends upon facts and circumstance of each case. 16. In service matters the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, the High Court would not interfere with the quantum of the punishment. 17. As many as 25 charges are levelled against the Petitioner. Having regard to the nature of charges, punishment for the charges imposed against the Petitioner cannot be said to disproportionate and the same cannot be interfered with. 18. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.